[PATCH 0/4] powernv: kvm: numa fault improvement
Aneesh Kumar K.V
aneesh.kumar at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Wed Jan 22 16:18:30 EST 2014
Paul Mackerras <paulus at samba.org> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 03:48:36PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 15.01.2014, at 07:36, Liu ping fan <kernelfans at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Alexander Graf <agraf at suse.de> wrote:
>> >> On 11.12.2013, at 09:47, Liu Ping Fan <kernelfans at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> This series is based on Aneesh's series "[PATCH -V2 0/5] powerpc: mm: Numa faults support for ppc64"
>> >>> For this series, I apply the same idea from the previous thread "[PATCH 0/3] optimize for powerpc _PAGE_NUMA"
>> >>> (for which, I still try to get a machine to show nums)
>> >>> But for this series, I think that I have a good justification -- the fact of heavy cost when switching context between guest and host,
>> >>> which is well known.
>> >> This cover letter isn't really telling me anything. Please put a proper description of what you're trying to achieve, why you're trying to achieve what you're trying and convince your readers that it's a good idea to do it the way you do it.
>> > Sorry for the unclear message. After introducing the _PAGE_NUMA,
>> > kvmppc_do_h_enter() can not fill up the hpte for guest. Instead, it
>> > should rely on host's kvmppc_book3s_hv_page_fault() to call
>> > do_numa_page() to do the numa fault check. This incurs the overhead
>> > when exiting from rmode to vmode. My idea is that in
>> > kvmppc_do_h_enter(), we do a quick check, if the page is right placed,
>> > there is no need to exit to vmode (i.e saving htab, slab switching)
>> >>> If my suppose is correct, will CCing kvm at vger.kernel.org from next version.
>> >> This translates to me as "This is an RFC"?
>> > Yes, I am not quite sure about it. I have no bare-metal to verify it.
>> > So I hope at least, from the theory, it is correct.
>> Paul, could you please give this some thought and maybe benchmark it?
> OK, once I get Aneesh to tell me how I get to have ptes with
> _PAGE_NUMA set in the first place. :)
I guess we want patch 2, Which Liu has sent separately and I have
I am not sure about the rest of the patches in the series.
We definitely don't want to numa migrate on henter. We may want to do
that on fault. But even there, IMHO, we should let the host take the
fault and do the numa migration instead of doing this in guest context.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev